Invisible Indonesia thrusts into the world
By Claudia Kalb
The following is the second of two articles based on a report about a conference on Indonesia held in New York from March 13 to March 15.
NEW YORK (JP): In reference to the tension between developing and industrialized countries, Don Emerson, professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, asked a panel of speakers if the West was witnessing the "Asianization of Asia" economically and politically.
He cited the failure of U.S. trade talks with Japan and State Secretary Warren Christopher's failed trip to Beijing as the basis for his line of questioning.
Emerson's question came on the heels of an article published in The Wall Street Journal on April 13, citing Asian impatience with the West. "A new Asia is ascendant: increasingly prosperous, more self-confident and often resentful of what it perceives as a preachy patronizing West," the Journal reported.
Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences disagreed, saying that Indonesia's attitude toward the United States had become more moderate since the end of the Cold War.
"We're not embarrassed to say that the United States does serve some purpose," Anwar said. "Now, the discourse between Asia and the West is on a more equal footing. There's less and less defensiveness on the part of Asia and less and less arrogance on the part of the West."
But despite Anwar's comments, the touchy issue of democracy provoked Indonesian speakers in particular to ask for a more thorough appreciation of what Emil Salim of the Center of Policy and Implementation Studies, called the "disunited factors" that exist in Indonesia.
Citing the breakup of the Soviet and Yugoslavia, Salim warned that Indonesia's move toward a more open democracy had to be tempered by the delicate balance of ethnic and religious differences. "Everybody speaks about democracy," said Salim, "but developing countries have no rights whatsoever in determining where the world should go.
"Let the country move forward at a speed it can afford," he said. "Don't force change. Let change be decided by Indonesia. Don't impose change. Don't tell us what to do. Be a friend."
Marianne Haug of the World Bank noted the country's two "generic characteristics", continuity and flexibility, as key factors in its success over the past 25 years -- sticking with macroeconomic stability and at the same time adjusting to changes in the economic structure of the outside world.
Haug then warned Indonesia that there was no time to waste in maintaining its competitive position within the region and the world.
"Countries that fail to keep pace are left behind," Haug said.
She noted that whereas in the past countries had months, if not years to catch up to global economic developments, the process is much more accelerated today. "Reacting too slowly is often sufficient to divert resources and attention elsewhere." She cited Vietnam, China and, increasingly Latin America, as strong competitors for Indonesia.
Hadi Soesastro, executive director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, responded to Haug's concern by noting that because of Indonesia's successful economic reform, greater support for deregulation exists. "Liberalization doesn't sound like a dirty word any more in Indonesia," Soesastro said.
But because of the monopolization of some industries, he added, "It's going too slow."
In discussing Indonesia's entry into the global marketplace, the U.S. Assistant Trade Representative for Asia and the Pacific, Robert C. Cassidy, said the United States should attempt to harmonize disparate trade standards, facilitate financing for infrastructure development and work toward defining the issue of workers rights in terms of both international norms and the challenges of a developing country.
"It's a challenge for both Indonesia and the United States," Cassidy said. In response to an Indonesian student's question, "How enthusiastic is the United States toward Indonesia?" Cassidy said, "The fundamental view of the United States is that we are not well served if Indonesia's economy is not growing."
But Imam Taufik of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned that Indonesia suffers from an image problem in the United States.
"Indonesia is still considered a remote market with risk," Taufik said. Before trade numbers can go up "there must be an effort to enhance Indonesia's image."
Discussions on Indonesian politics covered the succession of power after President Soeharto, the role of the Armed Forces and the role of Islam in Indonesia's political future, as well as regional issues, such as Indonesia's role in ASEAN.
William Liddle, professor at Ohio State University, defined Indonesia's political system as a military authoritarian regime, in which the rule of the day is "arbitrary use of coercion" and "arbitrary decision-making."
But since 1987, Liddle said, the New order has been in a "new phase" characterized by President Soeharto's reaching out to constituencies such as ICMI and the indigenous middle class, while at the same time re-establishing control over ABRI.
Liddle also voiced what seemed to be a lone view of Soeharto's term in office. "On the basis of his actions, Soeharto intends to stay. He's not likely to step down in 1998."
Pointing to a burgeoning of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- about 10,000 since 1985 -- Marzuki Darusman of the Indonesian National Committee for Human Rights, said the "authoritarian prone government of Indonesia" was being forced to adjust to new players in the political arena.
In so doing, Darusman said, Indonesia was laying the groundwork for democracy. "There is more confidence that we are taking the future into our own hands. With the growth of NGOs and increased assertiveness of the society, Indonesia will have a much more dynamic society and real democracy can here be launched."
Don Emmerson of the University of Wisconsin accepted Darusman's positive prescription for democracy, but he cautioned that the regime in power could simply put on a "facade of real pluralism."
Emerson said that at worst increased activism could lead to "instability, rising unrest and clamping down." Emerson pointed to what he called "significant signs of ferment with political implications: "labor unrest, student unrest, a more vocal legislature, more autonomous leadership of parties and other organizations and an increase in press criticism.
Within the political discussion, speakers also raised the issue of what Professor Liddle called the "growing Islamic consciousness" in Indonesia. That consciousness, said Moslem Abdurrahman of the University of Illinois has become apparent in the rise of what he called the Moslem Middle Class.
"With an increase in material well being there is an increase in expectations of quality of life." As a result, Abdurrahman said, the Moslem Middle Class has turned to religious symbols and to prayer to combat an "imbalance between values and material social change."
But whereas rituals and pilgrimages are flourishing, said Abdurrahman, there has been a "depoliticization of Islam."
Mark Woodward of Arizona State University said Moslems were beginning to call for an end to the idea of the Islamic state and in recent years had redefined the life of the Islamic community as an "ethical and moral struggle rather than political."
Woodward said Islam in Indonesia had also sought to include rather than exclude, and that tolerance would provide the basis for "healing the divisions that marked Indonesian society in the first 20 years of its history."
But Woodward said Islam cannot be overlooked. "It is impossible to formulate Indonesia's future without the role of Islam. Modernity in Indonesia must be considered as more than infrastructure and microchips. Stability requires theological, as well as political, consensus."
When the speakers were asked to assess Indonesia's political future post-Soeharto in the context of the Armed Forces and Islam, William Liddle seemed to answer for everyone when he said, "It's very difficult to predict."